Re: [Lsr] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik,

please see inline:


On 17/05/2020 06:36, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [[ nits ]]
> 
> [ section 1 ]
> * "(e.g., SR-MPLS" is missing a closing parenthesis

yes, this has been fixed as a response to previous comments.

> 
> [ section 3 ]
> * "...unless all of its interfaces...":" do management interfaces, or other
>    interfaces over which no forwarding is taking place, count in this definition
>    of "all"?  

no, only those over which forwarding happens should be considered.


> If not, does this text need to be tightened or is this just one
>    of those things all implementers will naturally figure out? (I'm actually
>    betting this is just something readers will intuit.)

I would think so. It's kind of obvious that one would not take into 
consideration interfaces like loopback or other types over which real 
forwarding does not happen. The original text used line-cards instead of 
interfaces, but that was changed to interfaces based on comments from 
Alvaro.

If you insist, I can add a text to exclude the "non forwarding" 
interfaces, but I can see more questions coming in as a result :)

thanks,
Peter

> 
> 
> 
> 
>